International Draft

[Stotle]

Sure, now. There isn't anything else. It doesn't have to be that way. It's not like fans got together in 1905 and demanded only sports leagues organized this way.

I see it as a characteristic of the American fan, not the construct of the sports league. The leagues have evolved to fit the fans, no? If fans didn't care about championships 50 years ago teams wouldn't have cared about winning them either.

Maybe more than championships, specifically, I doubt you'll find American fans content to root for a team who's crowning achievement nine years out of ten is to be the team that isn't relegated. They'd follow another sport where "their team" isn't consistently outgunned. Or, given accessibility, simply root for another team.

[weams]

Or, given accessibility, simply root for another team.

Or watch another sport...

[DrungoHazewood]

It's a completely different animal. The best male athletes in Europe play soccer. That's the only way those leagues work, and even then there are players from elsewhere in the globe imported in to participate. You also have a captive fanbase in these countries with this being far and away *the* sport to follow.

Baseball competes with several other major sports leagues already, both for fan attention and for the top athletes in the country. As you rightly point out, the discrepancy between what fans in the US can pay to follow their team versus what fans in Cuba or the DR or PR or Venezuela can pay is huge. The top athletes in Colombia aren't going to start playing baseball over soccer simply because there is a south american version of MLB, nor will Canada become a baseball haven at the expense of hockey.

I think it's also possible that baseball opened the door for other sports to come in and compete in this market by tying up all the talent in one hierarchical structure under their control that didn't reflect the population. Soccer has a structure that cultivates grassroots fandom, with multi-generational support of teams that don't sniff the top tiers. But starting over 100 years ago MLB absorbed and bought out every independent league, turning countless fans of hometown teams into people who couldn't care less about their hometown teams. It's plausible that this vacuum led to (or at least contributed to) the growth of basketball and college sports and, of course, the explosion of football. And it also channeled almost all baseball fandom into MLB and it's one-championship-or-nothing model.

[DrungoHazewood]

I see it as a characteristic of the American fan, not the construct of the sports league. The leagues have evolved to fit the fans, no? If fans didn't care about championships 50 years ago teams wouldn't have cared about winning them either.

No, I think the fans evolve to fit the league. College sports are a rabid American thing, right? Are the many flavors of success there not American? Like the 40 bowl games? Or League tournaments that are wildly celebrated and their champions becoming 104-55 fodder for Duke in round 1?

Maybe more than championships, specifically, I doubt you'll find American fans content to root for a team who's crowning achievement nine years out of ten is to be the team that isn't relegated. They'd follow another sport where "their team" isn't consistently outgunned. Or, given accessibility, simply root for another team.

Again, I think this is backwards. Plenty of college teams win their own little league and have a small but rabid fanbase, even though they don't even pretend to be able to compete with the best college teams, much less pros.

And it's easy to say that no American fans would root for a team fighting to avoid relegation when they're never given the chance. When their team is doing poorly they just give up because they know there is nothing to play for. Relegation battles are something to play for.

People are people, and sports leagues were invented 150 years ago. This isn't in our genetics, it's not in our culture. It just happened to turn out this way.

[Stotle]

No, I think the fans evolve to fit the league. College sports are a rabid American thing, right? Are the many flavors of success there not American? Like the 40 bowl games? Or League tournaments that are wildly celebrated and their champions becoming 104-55 fodder for Duke in round 1?

Again, I think this is backwards. Plenty of college teams win their own little league and have a small but rabid fanbase, even though they don't even pretend to be able to compete with the best college teams, much less pros.

And it's easy to say that no American fans would root for a team fighting to avoid relegation when they're never given the chance. When their team is doing poorly they just give up because they know there is nothing to play for. Relegation battles are something to play for.

People are people, and sports leagues were invented 150 years ago. This isn't in our genetics, it's not in our culture. It just happened to turn out this way.

I certainly believe there is a small/rabid market for the type of leagues you suggest. But it is not the majority view in the US. It's niche. There's a reason bad teams tend to have empty stadiums. Having a small niche group of die hards cheering for non-relegation just doesn't seem like it would be enough to keep major sports franchises going in the US. Fans need to support the pro teams enough financially to allow them to be profitable and operate. I think that's a big obstacle.

Further, american culture is all about the superstar. There's a reason secondary leagues and independent leagues are not attracting the same attention/money as the primary sports leagues. People want to see the best of the best. They *love* being able to say they are on the side of the best of the best.

Minor league franchises are profitable. There's a niche there. The price point is right; great for families/small towns. But I just don't see it as the template for setting up major sports leagues on par with what we see with MLB.

[weams]

I certainly believe there is a small/rabid market for the type of leagues you suggest. But it is not the majority view in the US. It's niche. There's a reason bad teams tend to have empty stadiums. Having a small niche group of die hards cheering for non-relegation just doesn't seem like it would be enough to keep major sports franchises going in the US. Fans need to support the pro teams enough financially to allow them to be profitable and operate. I think that's a big obstacle.

Further, american culture is all about the superstar. There's a reason secondary leagues and independent leagues are not attracting the same attention/money as the primary sports leagues. People want to see the best of the best. They *love* being able to say they are on the side of the best of the best.

Minor league franchises are profitable. There's a niche there. The price point is right; great for families/small towns. But I just don't see it as the template for setting up major sports leagues on par with what we see with MLB.

It works in Europe where you can walk to the next town.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sometimes when I get a thing stuck in my head I'll post a question to Bill James' site. Just because I've read James since I was 15 and I still can't get over the fact I can now ask him questions which he occasionally responds to, if often in ways I never considered. So there's this, which is kind of counter to my position:

Did MLB's desire to control all of North American baseball lead to, or contribute to, the popularity of other sports here? 100 years ago baseball was kind of like soccer in Europe today, in that every town of every size had a team to call their own that settled into a league that their population and support and wealth let them compete in. But since MLB bought up the minors and turned most teams into fake teams with fake pennant races existing only to develop talent for the top tier all that pent up sports fandom had to go somewhere. Is it a coincidence that other team sports started to get really popular the same time as baseball was killing off independent minor leagues?

Asked by: jwilt

Answered: 1/27/2016

<!--Bill's Reply...

--> It is a coincidence, yes I don't think it is a related phenomenon. The town I grew up in, Mayetta, Kansas (population around 300) was founded in 1898, and had its own newspaper. If you go back to the newspapers of 1900, 1910, you find accounts of the local baseball teams, the town teams, playing games against the town teams from other towns around. Those town teams continued until World War II, but were losing steam; the local newspapers folded, and interest in the local games died. After World War II there were A LOT of local institutions that died because nobody restarted them after the war. Town team baseball was one of them. . . . ..Almost everything changes from generation to generation. Something complicated like baseball, it changes on a hundred different levels. I think your interpretation of what happened is too linear. Just my opinion.

[DrungoHazewood]

I certainly believe there is a small/rabid market for the type of leagues you suggest. But it is not the majority view in the US. It's niche. There's a reason bad teams tend to have empty stadiums. Having a small niche group of die hards cheering for non-relegation just doesn't seem like it would be enough to keep major sports franchises going in the US. Fans need to support the pro teams enough financially to allow them to be profitable and operate. I think that's a big obstacle.

Further, american culture is all about the superstar. There's a reason secondary leagues and independent leagues are not attracting the same attention/money as the primary sports leagues. People want to see the best of the best. They *love* being able to say they are on the side of the best of the best.

Minor league franchises are profitable. There's a niche there. The price point is right; great for families/small towns. But I just don't see it as the template for setting up major sports leagues on par with what we see with MLB.

It's a kind of chicken/egg argument, and of course it's all speculative. Soccer has its own star/dynasty worship, too. But it coexists with other types of fandom, too. Fans everywhere want to watch the best, but they also want a team with a connection to them. That's part of why college sports works. And why I think minor league baseball might work better with teams that aren't so transient and completely subservient to the majors.

But as James said in response to my question, much has changed since baseball was anything like that. And today other sports have probably consumed much or all of that market. Also, media has made following the MLB teams much easier. I can watch almost every game of any top-level European soccer team I want. In 1930, if you lived in Walla Walla the only team you could watch with any regularity was the Walla Walla team. I actually have an emotional connection to Tottenham Hotspur. Just 10 years ago that would have been essentially impossible from Maryland.

[Stotle]

It's a kind of chicken/egg argument, and of course it's all speculative. Soccer has its own star/dynasty worship, too. But it coexists with other types of fandom, too. Fans everywhere want to watch the best, but they also want a team with a connection to them. That's part of why college sports works. And why I think minor league baseball might work better with teams that aren't so transient and completely subservient to the majors.

But as James said in response to my question, much has changed since baseball was anything like that. And today other sports have probably consumed much or all of that market. Also, media has made following the MLB teams much easier. I can watch almost every game of any top-level European soccer team I want. In 1930, if you lived in Walla Walla the only team you could watch with any regularity was the Walla Walla team. I actually have an emotional connection to Tottenham Hotspur. Just 10 years ago that would have been essentially impossible from Maryland.

All good points. Appreciate the discussion. So....everyone agrees "yes" to the international draft, ya?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Can_of_corn]

All good points. Appreciate the discussion. So....everyone agrees "yes" to the international draft, ya?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hate the idea, I think it will decrease the number of players coming into this country.

I have just accepted it is inevitable since the Union won't fight for them.

[DrungoHazewood]

I hate the idea, I think it will decrease the number of players coming into this country.

I have just accepted it is inevitable since the Union won't fight for them.

I think it will lead to fewer players coming into the US, but also slightly decreasing the talent pool overall. For all their ills academies bring in talent, and you don't self-fund an academy if anyone can draft your guys. Maybe someone else (Japan? Korea?) steps up with more cash. I think it's in everyone's best interest for other countries to develop higher-level leagues. Japan needs to get out of their 20-30 year recession and kick some yen into the NPB.

I think, to a large extent, demand and accompanying money drives the size of the talent pool.

[Can_of_corn]

I think it will lead to fewer players coming into the US, but also slightly decreasing the talent pool overall. For all their ills academies bring in talent, and you don't self-fund an academy if anyone can draft your guys. Maybe someone else (Japan? Korea?) steps up with more cash. I think it's in everyone's best interest for other countries to develop higher-level leagues. Japan needs to get out of their 20-30 year recession and kick some yen into the NPB.

I think, to a large extent, demand and accompanying money drives the size of the talent pool.

To me one leads to the other.

No reason to think that baseball will suddenly be more attractive to US youths.

[Stotle]

I hate the idea, I think it will decrease the number of players coming into this country.

I have just accepted it is inevitable since the Union won't fight for them.

Why do you think this?

[Can_of_corn]

Why do you think this?

A number of reasons.

1- These kids are not Union members, so nothing is owed to them.

2- A bit of lingering resentment that these kids are making all this money "before paying their dues".

3- The fact that the Union members can get a concession for themselves by doing so.

4- The main reason is that they did it just a few years ago, when they got rid of major league contracts for draftees and approved the slotting system. I asked Guts about it on Twitter and he didn't seem to feel guilty at all about trading away things that, to me, were not theirs to trade.

I think it is a bad thing when the Union can negotiate rights away from non-union members.

[DrungoHazewood]

No reason to think that baseball will suddenly be more attractive to US youths.

Money. If there's the prospect of more players making more money more kids will be interested. If all minor leaguers made $100k I think you'd see a massive surge in interest in the game by young players. Yesterday I overheard a conversation between two 19-year-old that went something like "I'd show up to jury duty every day if I wasn't going to get picked, the $15 is nothing to sneeze at."